D.O.F : 27/09/2022
D.O.O : 05/07/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.238/2022
Dated this, the 5th day of July 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Muhammedkunhi K P, aged 41 years
R/at Karakkundil, Near ITI Pullur,
Pullur, Haripuram P O, Pullur Village
Kasaragod district.
(Adv: Naveen Shankar A) : Complainant
And
The Manager
Indostar Capital Finance Co. Ltd,
Office at Golden Arcade,
Near Akash Auditorium,
North Kottachery
P O Kanhangad, Pin – 671315.
(Adv: P Y Ajaykumar) : Opposite Party
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of the case is that, the opposite party is a leading non-banking finance company. The complainant’s vehicle with company name Mahindra-MAH 1000014 with registration No. KL11 AU 3923 was hypothecated with opposite party for a loan amount with outstanding amount of Rs. 2,93,132/- on 20/6/2019. The complainant was regularly repaying instalments. On 10/8/2022, the complainant closed the loan by paying the entire balance amount even before the stipulated period. Since the vehicle is hypothecated with opposite party, complainant required a clearance certificate showing clearance of the hypothecation liability. Then only the complainant will be able to make a valid transfer of the vehicle to anybody. Before that the complainant had to deliver and communicate the clearance to RTO to cancel the entry of hypothecation from registration certificate. After clearing the loan amount, complainant met opposite party to obtain clearance certificate. But opposite party refused to issue the clearance certificate stating that the opposite party took over another loan of the complainant from ICICI Bank. But the complainant was not known anything about this. The complainant in anticipation of the reception of clearance certificate, sold above vehicle to one Rahul by an agreement. While selling the vehicle there is an oral undertaking that the complainant would furnish the clearance certificate to be produced before RTO. The complainant met opposite party several times and fed up with their irresponsible attitude, he caused to send a legal notice to opposite party. The opposite party admitted that the loan is closed and stated some other void reasons for the non-issue of clearance certificate. Hence the complainant is seeking a direction against opposite party to issue clearance certificate to the complainant with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of this proceedings.
Notice of opposite party served. But he remained absent, name of opposite party called absent, set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Heard the complainant. The main questions raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in connection with non-issuance of clearance certificate after closing the loan to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
All points can be discussed together. Here the complainant hypothecated his vehicle with opposite party for an amount of Rs. 2,93,132/- on 20/06/2019. The complainant closed the loan by paying the entire balance before the stipulate period, ie, on 10/08/2022. The complainant required a clearance certificate from opposite party, then only he will be able to make a valid transfer of the vehicle to anybody. After clearing the loan amount, the complainant met the opposite party many times to obtain clearance certificate. But the opposite party refused to issue the same stating that opposite party took another loan in the name of complainant from ICICI Bank. But the complainant is unaware of such a loan. The complainant wants to score off the hypothecation entry from records, but all his attempts failed due to the non-co-operation of the opposite party. The complainant has produced Ext. A1 to A3 to prove his case. Ext. A1 is the lawyer notice send by the complainant to opposite party, Ext. A2 is the acknowledgement, and A3 is the reply to the lawyer notice. Even though opposite party admits that loan is closed, NOC is not issued so far. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, complainant’s case stands proved and the complainant is entitled for relief.
We carefully gone through the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant. This commission holds that due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, the complainant had undergone huge loss and mental agony. And the opposite party is bound to compensate the loss and agony undergone by the complainant.
The prayer of the complainant is that, opposite party may be directed to issue clearance certificate along with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of this proceedings. Issuance of clearance certificate by the opposite party to the complainant is a genuine demand and the complainant is entitled for the same. The opposite party is legally bound to issue the same. But the complainant has not produced any evidence for such a huge loss of Rs. 1,00,000/. This commission holds that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case, considering the facts and circumstances of this case. The complainant is also entitled for the cost of the proceedings also.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing opposite party to issue clearance certificate with a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) and a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Lawyer notice
A2 – Acknowledgment
A3 – Reply notice
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
